In this post I will present an article about «a controversy» in science. It is an article written by Ben Harris, “Whatever happened to little Albert?”, published in 1979. Ben Harris is a professor of psychology at the University of New Hampshire. He works on the history of psychology, medicine and the history of science. He is very interested in the history and mythology of Watsonnian behaviorism: he studied the change in the nature of the expertise of psychology for centuries. His interest is the transformation of psychological knowledge in the mass audience (popularization of psychology). Thus, he was also interested in the experience of little Albert: he is a child to whom John Watson taught fear by using a neutral stimulus (a mouse) combined with an unconditional stimulus (a loud noise). This repeated action, causes in the child a fear associated with the mouse – classic conditioning.
The intimacies in science are sometimes worthy of star magazines. This is the case of John Watson who today is seen as the founder of the school of behaviorist, which dominated North American psychology between 1920 and 1960. Behaviorism is the approach that emphasizes the study of observable behaviour and the role of the environment as a determinant of behaviour.
A little word about John Watson’s academic life
Even if he claims himself to be lazy and inferior academically, he will nevertheless do a major in psychology, a minor in philosophy and he will also takes courses in neurology, especially animal neurology, which was his great interest. This is how his dissertation will focus on the description of the development and psychology of the white rat.
In 1907 he received a post as an associate professor (from James Baldwin) at John Hopkins University. After a few weeks of Watson’s arrival, Baldwin is fired because of a sexual scandal and leaves the department and the newspaper he created, Psychological Review, to Watson.
Watson did not hide his intention to use the editorial control of this review to impose animal psychology on traditional psychology and in 5 years he published the article «Psychology as the behaviorist views it » in which he makes a comparison between animal psychology and traditional psychology and he declares animal psychology as the true method of scientific psychology per se.
In 1915 he becames president of the American Psychological Association (APA) and likewise was inspired by the work of Pavlov who entered the United States in 1909. This is how Watson adopts and adapts Pavlov’s «reflexological» terminology for human behaviour which will also influence his theory of emotions.
In 1917 he published the article « Emotional Reactions and psychological experimentation » with J.J.B. Morgan in The american Journal of Psychology in which precisely he will expose his theory of emotions. For this theory he will also be influenced by the theory of emotions written by William James who says that emotion translates a response to physiological changes. William James says that « We feel sad because we cry, angry because we hit someone and scared because we tremble ».
So, Watson in his theory says there are three fundamental emotions: love, fear and rage that under the influence of the environment will be activated and that the laboratory is a possible method to bring emotions under experimental control.
And so, to really check this out, in 1920, with Rosalie Rayner, who was her assistant at John Hopkins, will lead the experiment of little Albert, after which he will publish the article « Conditioned Emotional Reactions ». After a few months of the end of the experiment, Watson will resign from John Hopkins because of a sexual scandal (with Rayner), like his predecessor, Baldwin.
Later, Watson will marry Rosalie Rayner, with whom he will have two children, William and James, who will be raised on the behaviorism principles. As a result, both will attempt suicide and one of them will die.
So who was the little Albert?
All the psychology students have already heard about the experience of little Albert in their studies and perhaps they have asked themselves the question: what happened with Albert after the experience?
Hall Beck, an american professor of psychology, received this kind of question from his students and so, he began to search for the identity of little Albert.
The research took seven years and it was very laborious. They first found the census done in 1920 in John Hopkins Hospital. They found 3 women who were nannies with 3 children, and by elimination of some criteria they found the kid : Douglas Merrite, a caucasian boy, born between March 2 and 16 – like Albert. They found facial similarities and so the characteristics weren’t very different to say it’s not the same person. According to Douglas Merritte’s death certificate, he died from a hydrocephaly acquired two years after the experience of little Albert.
Subsequently, other researchers became interested in the subject. Thus, Fridlund et al. (2012) finds Douglas’ medical records, which indicate that he had congenital hydrocephaly and not acquired hydrocephaly as indicated on the death certificate. Similarly, Fridlund shows the video of little Albert (in blind condition) to a neurologist who observed behavioural and neurological deficits (sign of congenital hydrocephaly) such as lack of social referencing (eye follow-up), no reactivity or facial expression. Some information showed that Watson was aware of Douglas/Albert’s condition and that he used a sick child for his experience in a conscious manner. That’s why Fridlund accused him for fraud.
This situation refers us to ethical laws: the fact of inducing fear to a children and in addition using vulnerable people (in connection with Douglas disease) is questionable. This shows the need for participant protection in the sense that there was no informed consent at the time: Douglas’s mother was a nanny, so in the hierarchy of the hospital she didn’t had a place that allowed her to refuse the use of her child in the experiment or to remove her child from the experience when she wanted it to.
Similarly, the distortion of words (discrepancies between the video and what is written in the article) is perceived as an obstacle to scientific knowledge. All this had a major influence in the creation of the code of ethics by the APA in 1953.
Another influence that Little Albert’s experience has had is on the basis of Behavioural Therapies : inspired by Watson experiment, Mary Cover Jones in 1924 leads an experiment on a 2-year-old child that she will condition him to be afraid of white rats, rabbit, fur (like Albert’s experience) and after that, she will set up reconditioning work – the child is no longer afraid of white rats.
Wolpe in 1958 created a conditioned anxiety pattern for phobias, which he called “reciprocal inhibition”. In this model phobia is seen as a conditioned anxiety (fear). Any “neutral” stimulus, simple or complex, that manages to have an impact on the individual at the moment when a fear reaction is evoked, acquires the ability to generate fear afterwards. To support this model, Wolpe cites Albert’s study to indicate that it is possible for an experience to induce phobia.
Field and Nightingale, in 2009, will do an article review on contra-phobic treatments. They argue that Albert’s experience was the first empirical evidence to say that classic conditioning is a viable explanation for the phobic response. Watson’s idea was that if fear can be learned, it can also be unlearn what is nevertheless the basis of cognitive-behavioural theory, which has proven its effectiveness in anxiety disorders.
In conclusion, sometimes science is based on this kind of experiences which have good and bad sides. However it is important to know both sides to try not to repeat them and enhance the quality of the future experiments.
Words that i have learned : census (recensement) ; acquire (acquérir) ; congenital (congénital = qui est présent à la naissance).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMnhyGozLyE
Beck, H. P. (2011). Finding Little Albert: A seven-year search for psychology’s lost boy. The Psychologist, 24, 392–395.
Beck, H. P., Levinson, S., & Irons, G. (2009). Finding Little Albert: A journey to John B. Watson’s infant laboratory. American Psychologist, 64, 605–614.
Field, A. P., & Nightingale, Z. C. (2009). Test of time: What if Little Albert had escaped? Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 14, 311–319.
Fridlund, A. J., Beck, H. P., Goldie, W. D., & Irons, G. (2012). Little Albert: A neurologically impaired child. History of Psychology, 15, 302–327.
Harris, B. (1979). Whatever happened to little Albert?. American psychologist, 34(2), 151-160.
Jones, M. C. (1924). A laboratory study of fear: The case of Peter. Pedagogical Seminary, 31, 308–315.
Powell, R. A., Digdon, N., Harris, B., & Smithson, C. (2014). Correcting the record of Watson, Rayner, and Little Albert: Albert Barger as “Psychology’s lost boy”. American Psychologist, 69(6), 600-611.
Watson, J. B., & Morgan, J. J. B. (1917). Emotional reactions and psychological experimentation. The American Journal of Psychology, 28, 163-174.
Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35(1), 1-14.
Wolpe, J. (1958). Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. In Harris, B. (1979). Whatever happened to little Albert?. American psychologist, 34(2), 151-160.